Buddy, all the above aside you need to look at the weight you are pushing. 100lbs...you shouldn't expect much size. Plain and simple.
Not being mean at all just calling it like I see it. You can have a fairly crappy diet and still develop a descent body (albeit not shredded) and a pretty massive chest if you push good weights and exercise consistently. But, you have to work with fairly heavy weight.
I don't care if you weigh 145-180lbs you should be benching 225 at least

My tips: increase 5-10lbs a week for the foreseeable future... Eat healthy, lift progressively heavier, and you will see some growth. Keep a journal to make sure you do not stagnate and log all your lifting. Also, don't over train.

Buddy, all the above aside you need to look at the weight you are pushing. 100lbs...you shouldn't expect much size. Plain and simple.
Not being mean at all just calling it like I see it. You can have a fairly crappy diet and still develop a descent body (albeit not shredded) and a pretty massive chest if you push good weights and exercise consistently. But, you have to work with fairly heavy weight.
I don't care if you weigh 145-180lbs you should be benching 225 at least

My tips: increase 5-10lbs a week for the foreseeable future... Eat healthy, lift progressively heavier, and you will see some growth. Keep a journal to make sure you do not stagnate and log all your lifting. Also, don't over train.

I dont even know what to consider strong anymore, because nowa days it seems like every little 170 pound twig can deadlift 2-3x their bodyweight for reps, 2-3x their bodyweight on squats, and 2x their bodyweight on bench press....lol I won't lie it does get me pissed off(jealous) when I see some twig deadlifting 600 for reps....but then again most of those guys didn't have to work 110 percent to get there, just having those so called "genetics" does wonders. Or extremely short limbs! Okay, okay, im a jealous hater! (even though 600lbs squats/deads were in my arsenal during my senior year in high school) hehe

Why the hell are there guys in the gym benchin like 20lbs more then me but are so much bigger....

Im eatin a ****load sleeping a lot and training hard and im gaining weight... Just not seein a chest difference

because size and strength are two different types of training. yes, you are always training the 4 main areas (strength, power, hypertrophy, endurance)
but depending on the rest, intensity & duration of the training, this will move the focus from one of those 4 onto more than the others.

example, I train just in the hypertrophy area, and in doing so, one can not be concerned with strength gains, because I am purely concerned with creating a hypertrophic responce, and nothing else. will I get bigger if I lift at 85-95% of my 1rm on all lifts for 3-6 reps, with 2-5 min of rest, 4-5 yes, but it wont be as efficiant as training 70-80% for 8-12 reps, with 45sec-1min of rest, with slow and controled, full, complete range of motion, on every rep.

there are guys a lot smaller than i who lift a lot more than I. you can go into any gym and see it.

when you see pictures of body builders lifting weights in magazines, those are just for looks, they openly admit the dont lift "heavy" for what their size is.

why dont you try adding in more sets, 3 sets per exercise is the very minimum, and I only use that for beginner clients.

4 sets, 15,12,10,8, 45sec-1min30sec rest, trying to increase the weight by a2.5-5lbs on each set.

intensity (weight) goes up, duration (reps) goes down.

make sure you are hitting full range of motion with the exercises.

this means for bench, bar goes up just before locking the elbows (do not lock them out), bar comes down (with control) all the way to the chest (lightly touching, not slamming down to bounce off), at nipple level, and repeat.

dumbells, top of lift, hold the dumbells so they make an A shape, then lower the dumbells, keeping the A shape down to the chest, at nipple level, and lift.

do not let the arms flare out, this causes your shoulders to take over, if you can not stop this from happening, you are lifting too much weight.

If he is lifting to impress someone with the little # on the side of the db he can forget getting any bigger. Id rather see a guy pressing the bucks with proper form and control for 10 than a guy flailing the 150's for 6 withWeight is for show and form is for grow. .

Chest growth will depend on his calories. Getting a big bench press and expanding his calories will lead to both growth and strength.

Person A- eats tons of calories and uses progressive overload; growth is inevitable.
Person B- eats a little bit and uses progressive overload; growth is not likely to occur, but the CNS will teach the muscle that the person alread has to generate force more efficiently - more motor unit activation, delayed stretch from the Golgi Tendon organ, etc. lightweight powerlifter style training.

You suggest that hypertrophy and strength specific without hypertrophy is separated by tempo while this is inaccurate. Hypertrophy and strength specific without hypertrophy is separated by the amount of calories the person consumes necessary to aid in the growth of the hypertrophy.

Bad advice. Progressive overload is not a "theory" but is a form of forcing muscular growth through never letting the muscle adapt to a specific stimulus in pounds, volume, tempo or selection. Progressive overload and lots of calories is how hypertrophy is structured.

Success from progressive overload with famous routines are often in many forms, example: linear progressive resistance, linear periodization, etc. One way or another you gotta make the next workout better than the last or you gave your body no reason to grow.

Don't see where you're going with this either. You can do your TUT 15-50 second eccentric/concentric phase with the bar all day long but it ain't gonna mean nothing. You need weight on the bar in order for it to count. There's a reason programs with the principles of progressive overload are so successful. You think hypertrophy is all in the technique and TUT but you are wrong. Hypertrophy is all about progressive overload and good nutrition.

Not to mention there are two forms of hypertrophy, myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic and both are generally stimulated differently than the other.

Also sounds to me like you're going to train your Type IIA fibers more than your Type I or Type IIB with your presented method. Slow reps with no weight is just going to cause a lactic acid "pump".

specific adaptations to imposed demands.

progressive over load, yes, you are correct, but specificity is also key, if ones goals are to get stronger, there is a specific way to train in order to maximize their performance/results.

you pointed out the myo (muscle) hypertrophy, but I think you failed to understand the specificity of the type of training.

you will get bigger if you lift heavy in the 3-5 rep range for the higher percentage of your 1rm, with proper rest, but as the data shows, it is not the most effeciant way to gain size.

progressive over load, yes, you are correct, but specificity is also key, if ones goals are to get stronger, there is a specific way to train in order to maximize their performance/results.

you pointed out the myo (muscle) hypertrophy, but I think you failed to understand the specificity of the type of training.
you will get bigger if you lift heavy in the 3-5 rep range for the higher percentage of your 1rm, with proper rest, but as the data shows, it is not the most effeciant way to gain size.

If he's doing it with proper form and control, I couldn't say enough about him. HE'S A BEAST for starters.

The guys he are suggesting sound to be much larger but not much stronger. So either the op is strong for his size or these "guys" aren't as strong for theirs. Pound for pound he's got them. It might be that the op has a denser and harder physique than the boys swoll up on creatine,water weight and no telling that appear to be bigger but not a whole lot stronger. I see this alot in the gym. There is also a point in there where it starts taking a lot more muscle mass to break lifting ceilings. I've seen guys weigh in the 180 range put up 365 and guys weigh 220 do good to put up 8 plates. Which guy is really stronger? The guy pressing 405, or the guy pressing twice his body weight? I've always been more impressed with the latter. To me the guy weighing 220 would need to be pressing 445 to be as strong.

Diminishing returns - it's taught in micro-economics but also applies to weight-to-strength ratio as well. But there could be another situation that the OP might not be considering (not that he hasn't but it's possible that he didnt consider this):

The guy next to him might not be training at 95% of his 1RM. He might do it like I do ~ 75% max, HIT style, to failure. PLUS, there are many guys in the gym that lift the same or more weight than I do but look considerably smaller as well. This goes back to form. My form is impeccable and my reps are slow. The way I press 225 on the bench would make a powerlifting judge wet his pants. But for a noob, this could be misleading to only see me press out 7-8 of those especially if I've been doing 3 sets of this with high-intensity and small breaks between sets. It would seem in that case that I'm pretty weak. Regardless if I wanted to impress the noobs around me I'd just slap 315 on there and press it normally, without impeccable form. Bottom line is that impeccable form leads to greater results and are always significantly harder to lift. If most guys did it like this their working sets would probably drop by 10-15% in weight.

I digress. I'm actually more on the OP's side though. I'm 5'5", 165lbs Bench ~ 300+, Squat ~ 375+, Dead ~ 375+, one of the best things you can do for strength is getting lean.

They're not set in stone, but general rule of thumb standards. They are for 1RM, other than the 15 rep squats that you supposedly should do for your own weight.

I disagree with your statement 3-5 reps is not the optimal way to maximize hypertrophy; it very well could be. I think the weight on the bar accounts for how much hypertrophy will be gained.

How much hypertrophy would you gain while eating in a caloric deficit and performing 10-15 reps with just the bar?

Whenever you here a "bodybuilder" rant about 10-15 reps per set, they mean a weight that you can handle that allows you to reach 10-15 reps via reaching failure, of course weights are important, progressive overload is a must, nobody said we are performaing 10-15 reps with just the bar, I suppose we "bodybuilders" just need to speak more specific.

Whenever you here a "bodybuilder" rant about 10-15 reps per set, they mean a weight that you can handle that allows you to reach 10-15 reps via reaching failure, of course weights are important, progressive overload is a must, nobody said we are performaing 10-15 reps with just the bar, I suppose we "bodybuilders" just need to speak more specific.

Well said. But as an additional comment it should go without mentioning that everyone is taking sets to failure regardless of strength or mass training. How could the muscle grow if it never approaches it's current limit? Unfortunately, not everyone has read Arnold's books lol. I like how I hear guys on here start piping in about "overtraining" when you go to failure too often. While I understand overtraining does occur when you have too much volume for too long of a period in your routine, it is something that doesn't come easy and I'd comfortably say that most guys in the gym have never truly experienced "overtraining" to begin with. I know I haven't! I've been unmotivated and tired, but not overtrained.

Anyways, not to open up another topic in this thread but I just wanted to confirm that I agree with your statement above 100%. If you aren't training to failure and you aren't progressively adding weight each week then you aren't a bodybuilder.

They're not set in stone, but general rule of thumb standards. They are for 1RM, other than the 15 rep squats that you supposedly should do for your own weight.

I disagree with your statement 3-5 reps is not the optimal way to maximize hypertrophy; it very well could be. I think the weight on the bar accounts for how much hypertrophy will be gained.

How much hypertrophy would you gain while eating in a caloric deficit and performing 10-15 reps with just the bar?

Arnold explains the hypertrophic rep range well. In his book, he says that your initial fibers recruited by the brain are being used to move the weight and as they become more fatigued, the brain will start recruiting more and more muscle fibers. And according to what part of the body you are training, a certain rep range "to failure" applies to maximize hypertrophy. For upper body ~ 8-12, for lower body ~ 10-15. There is another way to figure it out as well - 75% of your 1RM, taken to failure. In addition, Arnold also recommends going heavier than that on certain exercises, especially the power exercises such as bench and squats from time to time. These ideal rep ranges are generally what it takes to fatique all of the muscle fibers in that group

Well said. But as an additional comment it should go without mentioning that everyone is taking sets to failure regardless of strength or mass training. How could the muscle grow if it never approaches it's current limit? Unfortunately, not everyone has read Arnold's books lol. I like how I hear guys on here start piping in about "overtraining" when you go to failure too often. While I understand overtraining does occur when you have too much volume for too long of a period in your routine, it is something that doesn't come easy and I'd comfortably say that most guys in the gym have never truly experienced "overtraining" to begin with. I know I haven't! I've been unmotivated and tired, but not overtrained.

Anyways, not to open up another topic in this thread but I just wanted to confirm that I agree with your statement above 100%. If you aren't training to failure and you aren't progressively adding weight each week then you aren't a bodybuilder.

If this was facebook I would of liked that post a million times lol

You nailed it, I hate it when people are so concerned with overtraining when they don't even know what it is, in the past doing high volume for me while taking alot of sets to failure would literally run me into the ground cause me to get sick/lose appetite/inability to fall asleep/moody, but after countless battles in the gym, I feel my Central Nervous System is now able to handle the higher volume with intensity(failure). If your a newbie I feel if you want to take your physique to its highest level you must let go of your fears and just train like a maniac....I mean when was the last time you have seen a "bodybuilder" actually train "hard"? Only names I can think of are Branch Warren/Johnnie Jackson, Jason Huh, Kai Greene(before he hooked up with george farah), and Evan Centopani. Everyone else in the IFBB train like girls with excuses. lol okay, im sure their are more that train with intensity but you get my point. I live by intensity, and I despise anyone that doesn't live by intensity.

Arnold explains the hypertrophic rep range well. In his book, he says that your initial fibers recruited by the brain are being used to move the weight and as they become more fatigued, the brain will start recruiting more and more muscle fibers. And according to what part of the body you are training, a certain rep range "to failure" applies to maximize hypertrophy. For upper body ~ 8-12, for lower body ~ 10-15. There is another way to figure it out as well - 75% of your 1RM, taken to failure. In addition,

Those rep ranges are not set in stone. Dr. Squat "Fred Hatfield" recommends you calculate your % of fiber makeups to determine which specific rep range would be better.

Arnolds recommendation sounds like he assumes everyone has the exact same genetic makeup of fiber types. Some people have more fast twitch than slow twitch in a lot of different areas.

This is the same Arnold that thinks close grip benches stimulate the "inner chest" while wide grip stimulates the "outter chest".

Arnold also recommends going heavier than that on certain exercises, especially the power exercises such as bench and squats from time to time. These ideal rep ranges are generally what it takes to fatique all of the muscle fibers in that group

Bench presses are not "power exercises" and neither are squats.

Olympic lifts are power exercises.

Power is work per unit of time.

Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the thickest form and is stimulates better with low reps.

Those rep ranges are not set in stone. Dr. Squat "Fred Hatfield" recommends you calculate your % of fiber makeups to determine which specific rep range would be better.

Arnolds recommendation sounds like he assumes everyone has the exact same genetic makeup of fiber types. Some people have more fast twitch than slow twitch in a lot of different areas.

This is the same Arnold that thinks close grip benches stimulate the "inner chest" while wide grip stimulates the "outter chest".

Bench presses are not "power exercises" and neither are squats.

Olympic lifts are power exercises.

Power is work per unit of time.

Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the thickest form and is stimulates better with low reps.

First of all, no one said anything about "being set in stone". It's a general rule of thumb that, while doing his research over the years, Arnold had found it to be the optimal weight and rep range for maximum growth. I think everyone on here can agree that eventually, regardless of your style or technique, things will have to be changed up to continue to see hypertrophy from working out.

This is muscle and body science. Nothing is for sure. This is the one area that humans know least about. It is likely that a large portion of everything you say on here will one day be turned around and proved to be inaccurate, at least in certain scenarios. But still, I find it interesting that you challenge a hall of fame bodybuilder's experiences. And btw, Jay Cutler also believes close-grip works inner chest muscles. I'm not sure about what point you are getting at but who gives a crap. A pro bodybuilder and a hall-of-famer doesn't need your input on how he did it all wrong.

3-5 reps doesn't tear my muscles to any great degree. Maybe it does for someone who is all natty and gets tired after a few sets...I dont know. 3-5 reps helps my CNS development to lift more, but it hasn't been effective at building muscle mass for me. So regardless of how true your statement is about lower reps building muscle, it doesn't hold true in my case.

You're a smarta$% too and someone needs to tell you that. I took Physics for engineers last semester and could probably work calculus circles around 98% of the people I come in contact with...you might be one of those too. So I know what W is.

In fact, I'm gonna leave and just go back to the Anabolics section where I belong. Too many people with a stick up their butts around here...

First of all, no one said anything about "being set in stone". It's a general rule of thumb that, while doing his research over the years, Arnold had found it to be the optimal weight and rep range for maximum growth. I think everyone on here can agree that eventually, regardless of your style or technique, things will have to be changed up to continue to see hypertrophy from working out.

This is muscle and body science. Nothing is for sure. This is the one area that humans know least about. It is likely that a large portion of everything you say on here will one day be turned around and proved to be inaccurate, at least in certain scenarios. But still, I find it interesting that you challenge a hall of fame bodybuilder's experiences. And btw, Jay Cutler also believes close-grip works inner chest muscles. I'm not sure about what point you are getting at but who gives a crap. A pro bodybuilder and a hall-of-famer doesn't need your input on how he did it all wrong.

3-5 reps doesn't tear my muscles to any great degree. Maybe it does for someone who is all natty and gets tired after a few sets...I dont know. 3-5 reps helps my CNS development to lift more, but it hasn't been effective at building muscle mass for me. So regardless of how true your statement is about lower reps building muscle, it doesn't hold true in my case.

You're a smarta$% too and someone needs to tell you that. I took Physics for engineers last semester and could probably work calculus circles around 98% of the people I come in contact with...you might be one of those too. So I know what W is.

Lets keep this positive fellas haha

Though I must say....I don't know anyone who uses 3-5 reps that has development like a bodybuilder. If their is please show me KingK0ng, actually doesn't Coach Christian T over at Tnation use more of a myofbrillar hypertrophy protocol using 3-5 reps on every exercise? I may be wrong.

This is muscle and body science. Nothing is for sure. This is the one area that humans know least about. It is likely that a large portion of everything you say on here will one day be turned around and proved to be inaccurate, at least in certain scenarios. But still, I find it interesting that you challenge a hall of fame bodybuilder's experiences. And btw, Jay Cutler also believes close-grip works inner chest muscles. I'm not sure about what point you are getting at but who gives a crap. A pro bodybuilder and a hall-of-famer doesn't need your input on how he did it all wrong.

Then Jay Cutler needs to do some research too.

There IS no "inner chest muscle". The chest and any one muscle at that is like a rubber band... a nonexistent muscle does not contract. You work the whole chest or no chest. There's no "isolation of fibers". The all or none principle proves this wrong.

I don't care what they say. Their accomplishements in bodybuilder does not make them above physiology.

3-5 reps doesn't tear my muscles to any great degree. Maybe it does for someone who is all natty and gets tired after a few sets...I dont know. 3-5 reps helps my CNS development to lift more, but it hasn't been effective at building muscle mass for me. So regardless of how true your statement is about lower reps building muscle, it doesn't hold true in my case.

Your case? So you're suddenly different then every other human being that has walked this earth? How do you know 3-5 reps doesn't "tear" your muscles.

Do you even know how hypertrophy is stimulated? What's the difference in 5x5 and 3x10. 5 reps? You're saying that extra 5 reps is going to determine whether someone gets big or not? That's pathetic.

As long as contraction and recovery occurs, muscular hypertrophy is the result. It does not matter what rep range was used.

You're a smarta$% too and someone needs to tell you that. I took Physics for engineers last semester and could probably work calculus circles around 98% of the people I come in contact with...you might be one of those too. So I know what W is.

LOL...

I have a bachelors of science in nursing, two personal training certificates, certified strength and conditioning specialist, as well as 2 semesters of exercise physiology. I dont' care what "physics" you took. Physiology cannot be argued.

Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the thickest form of hypertrophy.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is mainly fluid. (Higher rep training).

I'm not a smart ass. I just back up what I say. I'm sorry you can't do the same. Go read some more physics books and work your inner chest or whatever.

In fact, I'm gonna leave and just go back to the Anabolics section where I belong. Too many people with a stick up their butts around here...

Right. Exactly where you need to be. In the steroid section where your friends Arnold and Jay was their entire prime.

There IS no "inner chest muscle". The chest and any one muscle at that is like a rubber band... a nonexistent muscle does not contract. You work the whole chest or no chest. There's no "isolation of fibers". The all or none principle proves this wrong.

I don't care what they say. Their accomplishements in bodybuilder does not make them above physiology.

Your case? So you're suddenly different then every other human being that has walked this earth? How do you know 3-5 reps doesn't "tear" your muscles.

Do you even know how hypertrophy is stimulated? What's the difference in 5x5 and 3x10. 5 reps? You're saying that extra 5 reps is going to determine whether someone gets big or not? That's pathetic.

As long as contraction and recovery occurs, muscular hypertrophy is the result. It does not matter what rep range was used.

LOL...

I have a bachelors of science in nursing, two personal training certificates, certified strength and conditioning specialist, as well as 2 semesters of exercise physiology. I dont' care what "physics" you took. Physiology cannot be argued.

Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the thickest form of hypertrophy.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is mainly fluid. (Higher rep training).

I'm not a smart ass. I just back up what I say. I'm sorry you can't do the same. Go read some more physics books and work your inner chest or whatever.

Right. Exactly where you need to be. In the steroid section where your friends Arnold and Jay was their entire prime.

I think you need to clarify intensity levels before you go spouting off about low rep ranges really creating hypertrophy. 5X5 training is not a good supporting example of your argument since you've been talking about 3-5 reps but have not mentioned at all the pace and time in between sets. 5x5 is superset training and essentially makes 1 10 rep exercise out of two 5 rep exercises. Not to mention the 1 minute break in between each set which would have everything to do with muscle fatigue. But doing just 3 to 4 sets of 5 reps with a 2-3 minute break in between each set hasn't done crap for my in the past and I suspect it wont do anything for me in the future other than increase my CNS development.

Let's not forget it was you that was the prideful one from the beginning so I feel it's definitely necessary that you defend yourself with credentials. Thank you for that. I have taken enough courses to know what Work is and I'm defending my credentials as well. I didn't come on here saying that I knew more than you. You came on here talking to me like I am uneducated. You came on here arguing against common knowledge about effective muscle building, which typically starts around 6 reps and goes up to 12-15 reps depending on the body part/type. Thanks for the info about the chest fibers, that was helpful but I feel you still missed my point. Did the fact that Arnold didn't have multiple degrees in the field and the fact that he didn't understand the chest fibers properly really keep him from having success building his physique? It didn't!

He also mentions that his chest was a lagging muscle group at the beginning of his training, yet at the end of his training he could stand a cup on his upper chest. BTW, I have yet to read where he talked about inner chest development but I do know that Cutler made a statement about it some time ago.

Yeah I can back up my claims but do I need to? Really? Do I have to go find the thousands of references regarding ideal rep ranges to experience the most effective hypertrophy? 8-12 rep range is common practice in fitness for mass building. 3-5 is not however. The other things I have said I did reference, they were individuals (Arnold and Jay). Otherwise the rest of my statements were merely comments like you being a smart aleck. I didnt think I needed to reference my own experiences and opinions...

I think you need to clarify intensity levels before you go spouting off about low rep ranges really creating hypertrophy. 5X5 training is not a good supporting example of your argument since you've been talking about 3-5 reps but have not mentioned at all the pace and time in between sets. 5x5 is superset training and essentially makes 1 10 rep exercise out of two 5 rep exercises. Not to mention the 1 minute break in between each set which would have everything to do with muscle fatigue. But doing just 3 to 4 sets of 5 reps with a 2-3 minute break in between each set hasn't done crap for my in the past and I suspect it wont do anything for me in the future other than increase my CNS development.

You're usually vocabulary and you don't know the meaning. Intensity means % of 1RM.

3-5 reps IS 5X5. I used 5X5 as an example of total volume, which wasn't mentioned in this theory you posted.

Muscle fatigue is not the goal for muscular hypertrophy development. Progressive overload is the goal for muscular hypertrophy development. Your goal is to present the muscle with new tension each workout. You can do this through

As long as contraction and recovery occurs, muscular hypertrophy can develop.

Let's not forget it was you that was the prideful one from the beginning so I feel it's definitely necessary that you defend yourself with credentials. Thank you for that. I have taken enough courses to know what Work is and I'm defending my credentials as well. I didn't come on here saying that I knew more than you. You came on here talking to me like I am uneducated. You came on here arguing against common knowledge about effective muscle building, which typically starts around 6 reps and goes up to 12-15 reps depending on the body part/type. Thanks for the info about the chest fibers, that was helpful but I feel you still missed my point. Did the fact that Arnold didn't have multiple degrees in the field and the fact that he didn't understand the chest fibers properly really keep him from having success building his physique? It didn't!

Effective muscle building starts at 6 reps? Hm, so the LBM gained on Bill Starrs 5X5, Mark Rippetoes Starting Strength routine, The Texas Method, and Westside are all flawed? How did their LBM gain?

So if I perform 5X5, I won't gain muscle, but if I perform 5X6, I will? Do you see know how ridiculous that sounds?

Arnold has success in the field because of his genetics, hard work in the gym, and anabolics. Even though his understanding of the human body is flawed, he still knew to bench press, squat, deadlift, and trained with full body routines.

He also mentions that his chest was a lagging muscle group at the beginning of his training, yet at the end of his training he could stand a cup on his upper chest. BTW, I have yet to read where he talked about inner chest development but I do know that Cutler made a statement about it some time ago.

There's no such thing as inner chest development. The pectoralis major is one muscle. A muscle contracts at a whole. One side of the muscle contracts, the other side contracts.

Upper chest development is depended a lot on the two heads of the pectoralis major: clavicular head and sternal head.

The clavicular head is near the clavicle and incline presses stimulated them to a better degree than flat presses. However, you still cannot isolate the nonexistent inner chest.

Yeah I can back up my claims but do I need to? Really? Do I have to go find the thousands of references regarding ideal rep ranges to experience the most effective hypertrophy? 8-12 rep range is common practice in fitness for mass building. 3-5 is not however. The other things I have said I did reference, they were individuals (Arnold and Jay). Otherwise the rest of my statements were merely comments like you being a smart aleck. I didnt think I needed to reference my own experiences and opinions...

[/quote]

Rep range once again does not determine hypertrophy. Hypertrophy is gained with starting strength, but it is a lower rep program. The same thing with Starrs 5X5. Have you seen the legs on westside users? Their legs come from massive intensity (weight) low rep squats.

Myofibrillar hypertrophy is best with low reps. Myofibrillar hypertrophy is the thickestform of hypertrophy.

The 8-12 rep variable places muscles under longer TUT and TUT is only one variable to hypertrophy. TUT is not the most important variable for hypertrophy; recovery is.

You gain strength and you gain weight. What happens? You gain muscle.

I stuck with a low rep training routine for 7 months. My bench press jumped from 320lbs to 355lbs during this time period. My body weight increased from 205 to 215lbs and my bodyfat remained the same. What happened there? This was using Jim Wendlers 5/3/1.

I also forgot to add: how do I know to what degree my fibers tore? How about the searing pain and soreness the next 48 hours. No, it's not lactic acid that causes the pain the next day but you already know this. It's the torn muscle fibers. Lifting heavy for fewer reps doesn't do this for me. Going a bit lighter, having stricter form, and lifting enough reps to get bloodflow into the muscles does seem to cause growth for me however.

You might want to do more research. Lactic acid buildup is the cause of immediate onset muscle soreness, which is the burn in high rep training.

The soreness you're speaking of is delayed onset muscle soreness, which is the soreness 24 hours later.

Scientists have never discovered why your body is sore the next day. The tears you are speaking of is only a theory.

The most widely accepted theory is the eccentric phase to the lift. Eccentric refers to the phase of the lift in which the muscle is lengthening and moving with gravity (i.e. the down-phase to the bench press).

It is not discovered what causes this.

I can do reps with the bar all day long and get sore the next day, but nothing productive will come out of it.

If you can prove that lifting 275 X 3 reps causes equal or greater amounts of bloodflow and fatigue to my muscles as 225 X 8-10 reps, I might consider what you are saying to be legitimate information. Prove it.

The goal is not to fatigue muscles; it is to overload them.

If you benched 275 x 2 last workout, then benched 275 x 3 this workout, you have officially overloaded the muscle.

Both rep ranges can adequately build hypertrophy provided contraction and recovery has occurred.

I expect my instructors to cover this topic when I attempt to get my training degree.

You were arguing for progressive overload this whole time and not rep ranges?

Of course I agree that each workout needs to have progressive overload, but I just thought the ideal range (which has been a great success to me) is to stick with whatever I can do 8-15 reps. But as for each workout, I try to go heavier than the last. i agree completely on that.

I would like to see some bodybuilders or anyone in general that has a good amount of hypertrophy using 3-5 reps as his typical rep range. Drug talks aside of course.

I mean i'd love to train with 3-5 reps, its just its never worked for me in the past even with my nutrition/supps being on point, and it always resulted in some kind of tendonitis of some sort, and have yet seen any great physiques built on 3-5 reps as their typical rep range. Though correct me if im wrong, Christian T over at Tnation typically uses low reps for his hypertrophy training? Even though myofibrillar hypertrophy has been shown to be best around 3-5 reps, reality has shown for most people it just gives them injuries and more so strength gains via strengthening CNS/connective tissue. My point is just I want to get inspired via seeing others develop muscular physique using low reps for hypertrophy, just really haven't seen it yet...